Socrates' Conundrum

It's funny to me how once you learn something, the littlest of things can remind you of it. For example, as I was watching the movie Mr. & Mrs. Smith the other night, Brad Pitt's character said, "I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning." Even though this was just a line in a pretty good movie, it got me thinking: "is that true? Do I really think about the beginning in the end?"

To my surprise, it was true; I often times find myself contemplating about my journey from the beginning of a process all the way to the end. So, of course, it didn't faze me when I started to reflect on this current semester. With finals rapidly approaching, I took stock of all the things I did and didn't do, things I learned and didn't learn, and even the things that I could have done better. One by one I went through each of my courses like this. 

When I started to focus on this course, I really thought about the reading selections. And being the huge philosophy nerd that I am, I thought about one of the first assignments that we read: the "Apology." As I recalled how much I disliked that assignment, I also started to think about the "Crito." Ultimately, after sitting in thought for a few moments, I realized how contradicting Socrates really is/was. 

How can he reasonably say in the "Apology" that he will never be able to "hold [his] tongue" in regards to corrupting the youth--which has negative legal consequences--, and then in the "Crito" claim that it his legal obligation to refrain from doing wrong? If you ask me, if it doesn't seem reasonable it's because it's not.


I mean, let's reflect on the argument Socrates gave to Crito about why he shouldn't escape from jail:

(Premise 1) One should never do wrong

(Premise 2) If A has reached a just agreement with B, and if A willingly fails to keep his end of the agreement, then A wrongs B

(Premise 3) Socrats has reached a just agreement with Athens, such that he fails to keep his end of the agreement unless he either:

(i) persuades Athens that its laws or commands are unjust or 

(ii) obeys its laws and commands

(Premise 4) Socrates has not persuaded Athens that it is unjust to execute him

So: Socrates should not willingly escape his execution

Even though on its face this argument seems right, it just falls apart when you take Socrates' statements in the "Apology" into consideration. I mean, in general this argument prevents civil disobedience or revolution from existing. So how is that Socrates can make such a claim like the one he made in the "Apology?"

Reason would suggest that perhaps removing (i) from the picture would help because, assumably, the citizens would have some say in what is just and unjust. However, doing so would result in an issue with premise 2 in a way that already assumes that the contract was made on a just foundation and, therefore, could not have any unjust features.

So what could make Socrates' argument in the "Crito" align with his rebellious attitude in the "Apology?" To myself I thought, perhaps altering premise 1--one must never do wrong unless the only other option is to d something more wrong--is the only way to dissolve the discrepancy. I mean, unless Socrates truly thought it was more wrong to refrain from exposing "experts" as frauds  than to not refrain from doing so, his whole philosophy would be defective. But who can tell?

Even though I seem to have come up with a viable solution to the problem, something about Socrates and his whole philosophy just seems troublesome. I mean, given all that we have read and discussed about him, he just seems to be an asshole who just so happens to always be right even though he knows absolutely" nothing." And up until now I really didn't think about it. But, I guess it's true: in the end, you really do start thinking about the beginning.